DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the     22^nd day of September,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                          

                      :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                                

 Date of Filing:  08.10.2021   

     CC/167/2021

Raman  T S.,

Kizhakkethala Veedu, Kalakkad,

Madambu, Muthedath Ottapalam,

Palakkad.

(By Adv. P  Ramachandran)                                                                                        -              Complainant

                                                                                                                  Vs

1. The Managing Director,

       Kerala Automobiles Ltd.,

(Govt.of  Kerala Undertaking),

 Aralumood, Neyyattinkara P O,

 Thiruvananthapuram-679 123.

2. The Manager,

        S K K Agencies, Kal Electrical Auto Show Room,

Arani, Kavalappara, shoranur,

Palakkad- 679 523.                                                                                          -              Opposite parties

(Opposite parties Set ex-Parte)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member

Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

1. The complainant purchased an electric auto rickshaw manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and marketed through the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant paid Rs.307850/- towards the price of the auto rickshaw by raising a loan from Canara Bank, Vellinezhi Branch and pledging gold ornaments of his wife.  He also paid Rs.16,000/- towards accessories.

After a few weeks, the vehicle started showing complaints such as getting the vehicle “off”  while running.  Since this has happened repeatedly, the complainant informed the opposite parties and 2^nd opposite party sent a technician and checked the vehicle.  But the problem continued in spite of the repairing/servicing done by the 2^nd opposite party.  They informed the complainant that the problem is due to interruption in electrical supply, but they could not fix the defect so far.

The complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties through the his counsel on 13.11.2020.  On receipt of the legal notice, the 2^nd opposite party came to the house of the complainant and took the vehicle, to their service centre and returned on 18.11.2020 after repairs.  But the defect continued and he could not drive the vehicle confidently on the road and was forced to keep the vehicle idle in his house which caused financial loss to him.  Hence he has approached this commission with the following prayers.

 1.  Opposite party 1 and 2  jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs.307850/- towards

       the cost of the vehicle and Rs.12000/- towards the amount paid towards accessories.

2. Opposite parties to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for the mental and physical strain

      suffered by the complainant and also towards cost.

2. Notices were sent to opposite parties, but they did not enter appearance and hence were set ex-parte.
3. On 20.05.2022, the complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1-A14 as evidence.  On 21.07.2022 additional documents Exhibits A15 & A16 were also marked by the complainant.
4. In the absence of version, proof affidavit or documents marked as evidence from the side of the opposite parties this commission is left with the only option of relying on the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents adduced by him as evidence.  The documents marked as Ext.A1-A14 are the records related to the purchase of vehicle, its registration, insurance etc.  Exhibit A15 is the copy inspection report issued by the 1^st opposite party showing the defect of vehicle and A16 series is the lawyer notice, acknowledgement card and postal receipt.
5. The Exhibit A15 clearly shows the  defects of the vehicle, but it is not clear from this document whether all these defects can be attributed to as manufacturing defect or not.  But in the absence of any counter argument from the opposite party,  we are left with  the only  option to believe the words of the complainant and hence take a decision on the basis of his arguments on the issue.

The callous  and irresponsible behavior on the part of the  opposite parties even after the complainant approaching this Commission with the complaint, anybody can presume, what would have been their approach  towards the redressal of the  issues raised by the complainant  for rectifying the defect of the vehicle.

Hence this commission is of the considered opinion that the opposite parties failed in providing adequate and error free after sales service to the complainant which made him suffer huge financial loss apart from the mental agony and strain.

In view of all what is stated above the complainant is partly allowed ordering the following reliefs

1.Oppostie parties jointly and severally  pay Rs.307850/-  towards the cost of the vehicle &   

   Rs.12000/- towards the cost of accessories of with interest @ 10% pa from the

    date  of purchase of the vehicle  till the date of payment.

2.Opposite parties jointly and severally  pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental agony.

3.To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost (Rupees Ten thousand only).

The  opposite party shall   comply with  the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which  the opposite party shall pay  an amount of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof by way of solatium to the complainant till date of final  payment.

                Pronounced in open court on this the  22^nd  day of September,  2022.

                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                              President

                                                                   Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member    

                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                                                           Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                  Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of invoice dated 27.10.2020 issued by the KK Agencies  Shornur.

Ext.A2 – Application for registration of the vehicle presented before the Sub RTO, Ottapalam-3

                 pages.

Ext.A3 – Application for registration of the motor vehicle (FORM 20) dt.30.10.2020- 3 pages.

Ext.A4 –  Receipt  dated 31.10.2020 issued by  SRTO,Ottappalam-2 pages.

Ext.A5 -  Tax license u/s 4(3) (a) KMV Taxation Act, issued  by the MV Department.

Ext.A6-  Photocopy of the insurance policy, United India Insurance -2 pages.

Ext.A7 – Letter dated 13.11.00 with two more endorsements, issued by the KK Agencies .

Ext.A8-Letter dated 05.12.2020 issued by the KK Agencies.

Ext.A9- Owner ship record.

Ext.A10-Temporary  certificate of registration.

Ext.A11-Cheque for Rs. 282850/- issued by Canara Bank to the KK Agencies.

Ext.A12- Letter dated 13.10.2020 issued by the Canara bank to KK Agencies informing them of the

                sanctioning loan to the complainant.

Ext.A13-Receipt for Rs.25000/- issued by KK Agencies  at the time of booking the vehicle.

Ext.A14-Quotation dated 11.09.2020 issued by the KK Agencies.

Ext.A15-Inspection report dated 22.11.2021 issued by Kerala Automobiles limited to the

                complainant.

Ext.A16-Copy of the notices dated 15.12.20.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Cost :  10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)allowed as cost of the proceedings.